Thursday, December 27, 2012

My past few posts, I've painted a pretty grim picture of what it takes to sell to schools and districts. I want to take a moment just to answer the question "But hey, Rocketship doesn't act that way, you work with a ton of companies, you pay for products, etc." It's actually taken us a surprisingly long time to figure out just how different we are.

The fundamental reason we are different is that we are completely comfortable with the idea that we will use the best method for every type of learning for every student. What this nets out to for edtech is that if there is a program on which students learn certain concepts faster than with a tutor or from a teacher, we are overjoyed for them to learn that online. The efficiency of online learning (i.e. its cheaper per minute of learning time) allows us to redirect resources to pay teachers more, support them better, and put even more effort into the code we write to understand our students better. Because we are incredibly incented to allow students to learn as efficiently and effectively as possible, every time we can use edtech, the cost of that program is insignificant on a learning per minute basis compared to our other options.

So while traditional schools often having no budget line for edtech and having to steal money from their curricula line item, any serious blended school has a budget line for edtech. Ours is $100/student. Before your mouth starts watering too much, that $100 gets cut up among dozens of programs for assessment, instruction, scheduling, etc. So it's not a goldmine, but the point is that we have a line item. That means when you come to us with something good and we test it and it works, we want to buy it just as much as you want to sell it.

Compare this behavior with traditional schools. Traditional schools are not agnostic about learning methods. In general, they believe that a teacher with their class of students is the one and only best learning approach. If they happen to have computers in that classroom, the number of kids learning on those computers has nothing to do with the number of students that teacher can impact. So economically at least, they are disincented from purchasing technology. The school has already sunk the cost on its teacher salaries, and providing better online learning might be nice for the teachers, but since the perspective is that learning comes only by teachers teaching, the technology is just an afterthought.

So that's basically how blended schools are different. For many years, we implored vendors to build things for us and we convinced quite a few. What we've realized is that we aren't a very big market yet. Even within the charter sector, blended schools have only started to take off, there are probably fewer than 100 truly blended charters at this point. And on the district side, I have not seen a district make labor trade-offs yet, meaning that technology is not strategic, just a support for the teacher doing everything themselves. So a market of 100 schools with maybe 50,000 students is not nearly big enough to build a company around. How quickly does this change? My guess is that within the charter sector, this begins to change extremely rapidly (for our world), but nowhere near fast enough to worry about for the next decade. I would not be surprised to see 1000 blended schools in a decade, representing 500,000 students. If you had a great product and could charge $5/student, that would be $2.5M in revenue. Not so good. Outside of the charter market, is there a chance that things flip over quickly to blended and we see edtech become strategic? I'm usually pretty optimistic that change can happen, but unfortunately this goes right at one of the sacred cows in education - that only a teacher can provide the learning a child needs. There are many forces between unions and districts and school boards that will be very reluctant to rethink this belief. Even when Rocketship and other blended schools are getting 2X the learning for kids and 2X the salaries and job satisfaction for teachers, I think those institutional changes at traditional schools in district will be painful and slow.

Higher ed is a really good analogy here. The new wave of online higher ed companies like Udacity are going directly to students (for free!). While there may be some universities that get it and will be able to address the needs of students as well with a blended model (EdX from MIT and Harvard for example), the vast majority will not make the transition and there will be a new way that students learn after high school. This undoubtedly will make access to quality courses much higher and create a lot more equity than anything we could do physically (absolutely everyone is going to have a smartphone before the traditional institutions get on board).

So as a K12 edtech entrepreneur, I think that if you make the student your customer, you are in good shape. Schools like Rocketship will be great ways to validate and test products and we are happy to do it, but ultimately, you are going to make your money by doing a great job with the students themselves and we are just a channel to the student.

Monday, December 17, 2012

It was very interesting to be in a country where over 50% of students attend non-government schools. Let me say that in my opinion this proliferation of school choice is probably the second best reason to have hope for India, right behind the fact that every Indian parent is willing to do whatever it takes for their children to get a great education (so they can care for them in their old age). Now let's talk about what it may take for the affordable schools (generally with tuitions of $4-$20/month) to become a major driver for improvement in the system. For a long time, charter school advocates have focused on getting large penetration rates. We have found in places like New Orleans (80%+) and Washington D.C. (50%) that systems can start to make profound improvements in student achievement with high penetration rates. It's important to unpack the conditions that must be necessary for this to happen though:

1 - There must be a strong accountability system which can differentiate and compare the quality of all schools in the system. This is true in the United States, but not true in India. Before NCLB, we had many charter schools started for non-academic means. Like India, they were generally regulated on inputs/process, but not on outcomes. What we found is that they didn't do any better than most schools on average, because many of them were not started to produce superior academic results. I would guess the exact same thing is happening in India. Because the schools of choice are not accountable for student results, and because they are run as small businesses, they are going to maximize profits at the expense of student results. So once India has an accountability system, will really be day one of creating a great school system. Just as in the U.S., they will probably find that 10% of schools are doing incredible work and need to be scaled up, some other set are doing no harm, and a bunch need to be closed.

2 - It must be politically and legally possible to close bad operators. We see this difference between Washington D.C. and New Orleans. D.C. for a lot of reasons has not had the will to close down bad operators, many of whom are incredibly well connected politically. New Orleans on the other hand has had a much clearer policy on academic results schools need to show. They won an i3 grant a couple of years ago to begin shutting down the bottom 10% of schools every year and re-opening them with high performing operators. Rocketship's charters were approved in New Orleans under this program. So in India, the question is how well the market will work on its own and how much the government will have to get involved. I would imagine that just as in the U.S., shutting down government schools will be very difficult. I wonder though if the affordable schools will actually face market closure by parents who don't like their results. We have found in the U.S. that parents choose schools for a lot of reasons - proximity, safety, special programs, etc. My suspicion is that outcomes will be a lot higher on that list for Indian parents, but we will see.

3 - Talent. The challenge with building a great school system always comes down to how many talented educators you have and how well you can leverage them. The U.S. charter system took decades to work until there became enough high-quality operators that could scale up. Once a few of those exist in a city, then a city can decide how many great schools it wants. We are probably still a decade away from having a large enough supply of quality charter operators who can scale at the rates necessary. (Politically, you have to make a big dent in the city's problem within 5 years in order to create the political will to finish over a decade or two) India probably does not have anywhere near the level of talented multi-school operators it needs, though this will not become clear until the accountability system is in place and we can see who gets the results. If the U.S. is informative, until we had NCLB, we had almost no "No Excuses" schools in the country. So I would say again that once the accountability law has been in place for a year or two, then the country will be able to start scaling up what works.

4 - Political Will. This one is really interesting in India because it's currently in a very different position than the U.S. Here, over 80% of kids go to government schools. There, it's closer to 40%. So the real question in India is whether reformers can keep the space deregulated long enough to get items 1-3 going. If they do, they will have an amazing advantage over the U.S. and will likely be able to leapfrog our results, because they won't be fighting to fix a broken system, just focused on creating a new one. Given the urgency that Indian families feel towards education, my sense is that there will be far more popular desire for choice to continue to proliferate, but parents must be organized in order for this voice to be heard. I saw no indication that anyone was organizing parents in India and hope that they can get their soon. A Stand for Children India would be a phenomenal thing to have standing right next to Teach for India!

In the last part of this series, I'll talk a little bit about technology in schools and homes in India.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

For a country as intentional as India, it was pretty incredible to see the lack of outcome data. Students take a test once in 10th grade, and that's pretty much it. It caused me to reflect on the value of No Child Left Behind. There aren't too many things I agreed on with George W. Bush, but this was just an amazing step forward in accountability in the United States. I remember soon after that law got going, I presented my first charter application for Rocketship. Part of that process was to justify the need for a new school. So I took the school district results and disaggregated them into the results for upper-income students and low-income students, for white students and students of color. What I showed was a 50 percentage point gap in the number of students who were at grade level between upper-income and lower-income students. As I was presenting this to the school board, the superintendent's face got redder and redder, and he was clearly incensed with me. I could not figure out what was going on. I asked one of the board members afterwards and her response was telling: "John, we have never seen those numbers before. Our average result across all students was fine, so we thought our district was doing well." This was a school board member! Without outcome data, it's simply impossible for us humans to figure out the size of a problem, we aren't equipped to do that by observation.

So here is India with 400 million kids to educate and this incredibly rich system of government and private schools doing the work. Within hours, you are talking to people about why a given school approach is good or bad, all completely without any data to prove effectiveness. In the vacuum that this lack of accountability creates, the government of course regulates the only way it can, with inputs and process. So India is going to have to move very quickly to get outcome measures in place. My guess is that they can start with a couple of grade levels with beginning and end of year tests so that they can see gains, probably 4th and 7th grade or something like that. They also have the complexity that we do, which is that private schools could easily decide to opt out of the accountability system so that their results were not comparable to the government schools. For the upper-income private schools, I would expect them to do exactly that. But for most students, I think India has a great advantage over the United States. Because their affordable private schools are small businesses, they are incredibly competitive in recruiting students. Given the urgency of Indian parents, it is likely that outcome data would become one of the chief criteria they use for choosing schools. So affordable schools would be highly incented to take the test and then recruit with their results.

This aspect of India's system actually made me appreciate the U.S. approach, by focusing on outcomes (although of course people always question their validity), we have moved to a much more rational discussion than only a decade or two ago. Let's hope that India makes this jump soon!

Thursday, December 13, 2012

As I mentioned in my first post, it doesn't take long to realize that India has a scale problem that dwarfs the United States in its quest to have a world-class education system. Let's do some simple math to start. There are about 400 million kids in India. There are currently about 10 million teachers. If you talk to major urban superintendents in the United States, they will tell you that about 10% of their teachers make a year or more of progress with students each year. I know that is a low bar, kind of like "do no harm" more than success, but if you could create a school system with this 10% of teachers, you should be able to deliver a very high number of students to college readiness by the time they leave the 12th grade. In the U.S., this means that we probably have about 400,000 of our 4 million teachers who are able to get the results we need. We have about 60 million students, so the ratio of students to proficient teachers is 150:1. In India by contrast, if we assume (probably generously) that 10% of their teachers are proficient, then they should have about 1 million teachers for their 400 million students, so about 400:1.

In the past, we've always looked at a one teacher per classroom model. In that frame, these ratios don't make any sense. You are left with the idea that our only path to success is to increase the number of proficient teachers by 10x so that we can get the ratio into the range of a class, say 30:1 or 35:1. The challenge with this thinking is that massively increasing the number of proficient teachers is incredibly difficult. There are two fundamental problems. First, teaching is a low-pay and low-respect profession. Believe me, I don't like that at all, Rocketship is changing that within our own system, but it is unfortunately true in the U.S. and almost every country in the world right now. That means that your incoming pool of teachers tends to be filtered to people for whom the salary and respect are a good fit with their skills. As we have seen, most teachers come from the bottom quartile of academic achievement on admissions tests and college. Teach for America is the outlier here. Through an amazing brand and recruiting, it has successfully reached the top quartile of American students to become teachers. This is just a difficult thing to scale up to 4 million teachers.

The second challenge with creating more proficient teachers, is that improving teaching skill is very difficult. We have been successful at Rocketship in increasing teacher proficiency by .1 years of average student gain each year they are with us, but at 10 times the effort and expense that government schools spend on it. We have dedicated academic deans focused on improving teacher performance, our teacher pay aligns with student performance, teachers only come to Rocketship if they want to improve their teaching, we set 3 improvement goals between teacher and dean every 8 weeks, we videotape teachers instructing and compare their work to a master teacher doing the same thing, we use real time coaching with earbuds and live suggestions from our deans. So the idea that government school systems are going to align incentives and put this amount of work into helping teachers improve is not realistic. By the way, all of this work is funded by the fact that Rocketship runs blended schools which require fewer teachers than traditional schools. We reinvest the dollars we save to do this level of talent development, pay teachers more, spend 3 years developing our school leaders, etc. So without a major change in the way government schools are organized, I'm not sure they could afford to do this level of talent development even if all of the other incentives were aligned.

Given all of this, I think it is safer to assume that we have a fixed pool of proficient teaching talent both in the U.S. and India. This makes those ratios at the beginning a lot more relevant. If you have a fixed teacher pool and a given student population, you have to figure out how to leverage that talent over the larger number of students. At Rocketship, we are moving to a model where our lead teachers are in charge of an entire grade level of 100-120 students. Of course, they are not the only one in the room with the students, they have assistant teachers, coaches, technology, etc. In fact, it's much easier to think of the model in terms of the way doctors work in a hospital. Almost all of the time you are receiving care, nurses, technicians or others are working with you. The doctor will come in for 2-3 minutes to poke you and ask you questions, then tell the team what tests to do. After the tests are done, they come back for 2-3 minutes to read the results and make a decision. So in the several hours you are there, you get about 5 minutes of the doctor's time and at least in my experience, most of the time you get the right outcome. That is the way I think our schools will work within the next couple of decades. A very highly paid teacher's time will be leveraged in the same way that a doctor's time is now.

For India, that means that instead of that 150:1 ratio we need in the U.S., their proficient teachers need the support structure to work with 400 students. I am sure they will find many organizational schemes to make that happen, but I think a few things have to be true to get this kind of leverage. First, the teacher needs to be very well paid, because you really can't ever afford for them to leave their job, they are the linchpin to the entire system. At Rocketship, we currently pay our top performing teachers about $90,000 per year (about 1.5 times surrounding districts) and will move that to $120,000 per year over the next few years (about double surrounding districts). Talent is simply too valuable and too scarce in leveraged models to allow churn. Second, teachers will not be valued for the raw amount of work they can do, but for their decision making abilities. Figuring out that a student needs to work on a given skill (like a doctor figuring out that you need a certain medicine) will be highly valued. I am very hopeful that top teachers will continue to show the kind of emotional intelligence that we see today, although I have to say that I think they show a lot more than the average doctor, since doctors bedside manner is less valuable in a high stakes situation than whether they make you well. Third, there will clearly be other people working in schools with kids than just teachers. I think that's one place we will see much more selection for emotional intelligence, caring, and a desire to help. Much like nurses in hospitals, there is nothing like having someone on your side when you are going through a difficult situation. I think the same will be true at schools. The good news is that in these highly leveraged models, these folks should be paid about the same as teachers do today. Finally, a lot of a student's time is going to have to be online, learning skills without the need for any adult intervention. This is a lot like when you go home and take the medicine the doctor has prescribed. There is really no need for someone to call you every five minutes to see how you are doing. If it's not working, you will let them know! I will be fascinated to see if India can reframe the challenge from the traditional "we just need more great teachers" to one of "how do we leverage our fixed pool of great teachers to serve more children?"

In my next piece, I'll talk more about what India's accountability issues mean for their development, and a perspective that gives on the U.S. system.

Monday, December 10, 2012

I spent last week in Delhi and Mumbai with the generous help of Ashish Dhawan and his staff at the Central Square Foundation, a foundation totally focused on helping India's education system become world-class. I am going to write about the experience in a few parts over the next week or two, but my general theme would be "What can India teach us about educational systems and what perspective can it provide on what we are doing in the U.S.?"

The first thing you are struck by India is just the sheer number of people. This is a country with 1.2 billion people, over half living outside the cities, and about half of the population in the cities living at a very low standard of living ($100/month or less). There are 400 million kids under 18, of which currently only 7% go to college. So the need for scalable solutions in education is pretty obvious right from the start.

The second thing that is obvious when you talk to people is that India is moving from a developing nation to a developed nation in an incredibly short period of time (a decade or two). This is very apparent when you are in Delhi (the capital) and you hear about the incredible amount of legislation being enacted to try to bring a largely unregulated society towards equity and the rule of law.

The third thing that doesn't take long to realize is that Indians feel far differently about education than Americans. Traditionally, Indian children take care of their parents when they grow older. That means that the fate of the parent and the fate of the child are intertwined for their entire lifetimes. Sensibly, parents who want to be well cared for know that if their kids get a great education, they are more likely to be able to provide for them in their old age. So Indians are willing to spend significantly more on their children's education than Americans. This is not just the top 10% of Indians sending their kids to elite private schools. The folks I met in this class acted almost exactly like Americans, who also send their kids to elite private schools. What was much more striking was how the lower 90% of Indians deal with education.

India has government schools just like America. Like America, there are good ones and bad ones, but the overall average is not great. They have significant teacher absences, motivation problems, etc. No big surprise for those of us who have spent decades in government school systems. What is surprising is the reaction of these highly motivated lower and middle income Indian families. In walking the streets and talking to people, I found that almost everyone wants to send their children to private schools. Middle class in India is not like middle class in the United States. You often find people working as domestic workers, making $100-$300 per month, but they would be considered lower middle class. (average per capita GDP is $1500/yr or $125/mo) These families are willing to send their children to what is called "affordable private schools." By affordable, they mean schools costing on average from $4-$20 per month. What is even more striking is that people that don't even make the lower middle-class cut (I talked to several families making in the range of $40/month) are willing to spend the $4 per month for each of their children to send them to private school. The net of this is that in the major urban areas, a majority (60% was the stat I heard) of the kids go to affordable private schools. Having a population that has this kind of willingness to sacrifice for their kids to get a great educations is fundamentally different than our culture in the U.S. and bodes very well for a country that literally has to pull itself up by its boot-straps.

The next thing that struck me is that India lacks any accountability system for its schools and teachers. Kids take one high-stakes test in 10th grade for admissions into what we would call junior college in 11-12th grades. Other than that, no one has any idea who is doing good work and who is not, except by observation. As you might imagine, that causes all kinds of dysfunction, because schools which try to innovate are criticized for their lack of conformity, without any way to prove that their results are better. The affordable schools in particular suffer in this world of unaccountability, because of course they don't look like schools should. They have awful facilities, poorly trained teachers and enormous class sizes. So without any accountability system, it's a reasonable reaction to say they should all be shut down!

Finally, just as in the United States, lawmakers really like to make laws! In India, a new law called the Right to Education act makes the first pass at trying to provide equal opportunity for all Indians in school. Unfortunately, as we saw in the United States, governments love to regulate inputs and process, while outputs are scary because of the accountability aspects. So with all good intentions, the government has started to mandate things like what kind of school facility a student should have, the credentials of teachers, class size, etc. with no mention of student learning. We have seen this play before in the United States. These kind of input/process regulations show no correlation with student success, but are very effective at driving up costs or driving schools out of business. That is already showing signs in the affordable schools, making them less affordable.

The final experience I will talk about in this series is the use of technology. As with U.S. schools, strategic use of technology in education is incredibly low. To the credit of education technology entrepreneurs in India, they have convinced schools that they need smart boards and other incremental technology successfully. However, the actual student-focused use of technology has been minimal to date.

Overall, my trip to India was mind-blowing both in terms of the size of the problem, but also in terms of the energy and urgency which Indians feel to create a great education system. It was refreshing for someone who spends most of their time in the U.S. being attacked for feeling too much urgency!

India is in a very interesting place in a number of respects on technology. One of the most interesting is the low-cost tablets being created and primarily focused on education. These tablets will be $20 (subsidized by government) to schools and the people that had played with the Aakash 2 were very positive on it. This puts India on the leading edge of truly affordable school devices. Additionally, India has some very large potential advantages on the connectivity side. They are rolling out a national fibre network with connectivity even into rural areas. Finally, they are moving aggressively on 4G LTE connectivity, which should make a lot of sense in the dense urban areas in particular.

So on the hardware and connectivity side, lots going on. On the other hand, only 6.5% of phones in India are smart and many of those are the lowest end of web access phones. So it could take several years before the average family has home access. But overall, if the tablets work, and if connectivity gets deployed, Indian schools could be in very good shape to benefit from online learning.

In talking to the schools, especially affordable schools, technology in a school is seen as a key differentiator, so if there is useful stuff, they could be early adopters. So far, this has mostly been things like Smartboards. There is a very interesting pricing structure that has been used here. The manufacturers lease the equipment to the schools which charge parents for the use, adding a couple more dollars per month to fees. Maybe the same things happens with tablets, or maybe they are so cheap that parents just buy them.

Anyway, that leaves us with the normal school problem that the online curricula is not great. Additionally, the majority of Indians other than the upper-class speak a local language and Hindi, but not English. So even good curricula that is not Hindi localized will have a tough time gaining traction. Khan Academy for example was localized poorly and I heard plenty of criticism about the translations, though there were clearly still people trying to use it.

My conclusion is that the strong desire for learning in India, the desire to use technology, the competitiveness of the affordable schools, the enormous leverage needed to allow teachers to teach 400 students each, and the hardware/connectivity plans could make India a big early adopter.